I fully agree with Wayne and just want to add my two cents to the discussion. I often hear the argument that a web site is not very useful for users with a specific disability and therefore the site is not accessible even if it complies with WCAG A or AA. In these cases I think we have to tell people that WCAG is also a compromise between different needs and preferences and the alternative specific guidelines according to specific disabilities or other special needs would be impossible to incorporate in any larger setting and totally against the idea of standardization.
As we see problems due to the users lack of knowledge to their AT applications, there are also problems with users not understanding the meaning of specific checkpoints and guidelines in WCAG e.g. device independent input. I have several times had to explain that this is the guideline about not using the mouse.
Cheers
Helle
Sincerely
Helle BjarnÃ
Visual Impairment Knowledge Centre
Rymarksvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
Phone: +45 39 46 01 01
fax: +45 39 61 94 14
e-mail hbj@visinfo.dk
Direct phone: +45 39 46 01 04
Mobile: +45 20 43 43 47
www.visinfo.dk
www.euroaccessibility.org
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Dick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:58 AM
To: EOWG (E-mail)
Subject: Inaccessible Comliant Sites
Why People Think W3C Compliant Sites Can Be Inaccessible:
This should start things off.
1. Websites lie or stretch the truth: Many institutions claim
compliance when the claim is not true. This gives users the impression
that a compliant website is not accessible.
2. Priority 1 is pretty weak: This compliance leaves some big
usability holes. Layout tables are permitted; device independent input
can be skipped. That can be enough to render a site profoundly
difficult if not unusable.
3. Other guidelines: Some sites claim compliance with other guidelines
or cite affiliation with independent accessibility projects to support
accessibility claims. Again the user sees the claim of accessibility
and assumes some level of W3C compliance.
4. Total reliance on automated tools: A clean bill of health by an
evaluation tool is not W3C compliance. Many people pass tool at a
certain level and call that their complete audit. Periodically sites
must be audited by people.
5. Inexperience with assistive technology: Many new users blame the
page when they cannot use the assistive technology. I see this in my
classes when I use Home Page Reader to illustrate points.